JITENDRA SINGH Vs. NALNEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Revision No. 2021/52 (Nalneesh and Others vs. Jitendra Singh and Others). The Board of Revenue by the said order has stayed the operation of the order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the Assistant Collector, Alwar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 17.12.2020, the Assistant Collector, Alwar, passed an order in the suit wherein an ex-parte ad interim stay order was granted and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of revenue record as well as the possession of the property in question. The defendants No. 1 and 3 to 10 in spite appearing before the trial Court, filed the aforementioned revision petition before the Board of Revenue, whereas the Board of Revenue does not have jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the ex-parte ad-interim stay order passed during the pendency of the suit till the next date fixed for appearance of the other party. Learned counsel further submits that such kind of order can be challenged under Order 39 Rule 3 and 3A CPC by the aggrieved party. The Board of Revenue erroneously passed the impugned order dated 13.01.2021.In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Vidya Devi and Others vs. Chautha and Others, reported in 2016(1) WLN 248.

(3.) Perused the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue and the material placed before the Court.